Internet Explorer 10 is a fast browser with good standards compliance, and the version of Internet Explorer 10 included with Windows Phone 8 is [url="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/windows-phone-8-review-microsoft-lays-a-foundation-for-success/4/"]no exception[/url], as it's almost identical to its desktop sibling. But Internet Explorer 10 has a problem: Web developers don't expect to see it on the mobile Web. The mobile Web is dominated by WebKit-based browsers, and mobile sites tend to be developed exclusively for, and tested exclusively on, WebKit browsers. A similar problem exists for tablets.

Often the development is even narrower; although both Android and iOS sport WebKit-based browsers, iOS is the one that [url="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/11/firefox-dips-below-20-percent-chrome-falls-internet-explorer-gains/"]dominates mobile browser usage[/url], and dominates testing as a result.

This situation is all rather familiar; WebKit, especially on iOS, is occupying a similar position to that once held by Internet Explorer 6 on the desktop, where Web content was "best viewed in Internet Explorer 6" and was prone to breaking in Netscape or Firefox.

Keen to avoid being left out, Microsoft is imploring Web developers to [url="http://blogs.windows.com/windows_phone/b/wpdev/archive/2012/11/15/adapting-your-webkit-optimized-site-for-internet-explorer-10.aspx"]adapt their sites[/url]. In a recent blog post, the software giant explains a variety of ways in which devs can update their sites to work well in browsers other than WebKit. Key to this was proper handling of incompatible features.

There are several sources of incompatibility. The hardest case is features that are simply proprietary to WebKit; these need to be worked around in some way or other.

Most other cases are a result of the standardization process used for Web specifications. When a CSS or JavaScript specification is under development and still subject to change, browsers implementing it are supposed to add a browser-specific prefix to the pieces of CSS or JavaScript they use. So for example, while still in development, WebKit's implementation of CSS rounded borders should use properties like [size=3]-webkit-border-radius[/size]. Once the standard is stable and a browser is implementing that stable standard, the property should be renamed to simply [size=3]border-radius[/size].

For some standards, both browsers implement the stable version, without any prefix required. However, developers often fail to update their pages to accommodate this improving standard conformance, leaving their pages using prefixed properties, but not including equivalent unprefixed code. In this case, the solution is typically to remove the prefixes. Sometimes, the spec still isn't stable and the different browsers implement mutually incompatible versions of the spec, each with their own prefixes. In this case, the properties must be translated from one dialect to the other.

There are also some cases where the translation is more complex still, particularly when it comes to handling touch input. Apple pioneered work in this field in Safari, and a specification called Touch Events based on Safari (but created without Apple's involvement) is currently a Candidate Recommendation from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the body that works on producing Web standards. Microsoft has proposed an alternative system called Pointer Events which would handle not just touch but also mouse and pen input in a consistent way. For both technical and legal reasons, W3C has decided that rather than work on Touch Events version 2, all future development in this area will be to Pointer Events.

The problem for developers is that WebKit supports Touch Events; Internet Explorer 10 supports a prefixed version of Pointer Events. Translating between the two should be broadly possible, but there are nuances to this; it's not simply a case of doing a quick search and replace.

For those who remember the Internet Explorer of the late 1990s and early 2000s, Microsoft's stance may seem a little amusing

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

and, no, IE8, IE9 and IE10 will be the new IE6. Apple and Google along with Mozilla are following W3C and WHATWG in implementing new features and support for CSS3 and HTML and thus when we build web stuff today it just works across all of these browsers with most of the fancy effects and we are still jumping hoops and having to put up with Microsoft's IE crap.

So ironic but expected that Microsoft can't understand why they are terrible in this regard as well. IE 10 is better than all other IEs but it's STILL IE and it's still Microsoft, so we will continue supporting webkit because it evolves and browsers update themselves to be always current on user's machines while Microsoft still peddles their old proprietary crap..

Hey Microsoft, here's an idea for you.. MAKE IE based on webkit and help build a better webkit base since it's open and help developers develop for one HTML/web engine? Oh you don't want to, or you have to deal with your users who you screwed with terrible IEs? Well the web and internet in general won't wait for you. Nobody cares what you think anymore. You have shown us what web looks like with you and it's not a pretty picture and it's so ironic that we are being warned by MS about competing rendering engine not being "good" for us.

Just die already and stop whining since you are a decade late to the next generation.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If microsoft really cared about web developers and standards compliance they would release IE10 for vista and backport the necessary technologies for it to run. In april 2014 i'm sure we will see a lot of website drop support for IE6 but unfortunately vista came with IE7 if i remember correctly so they can't really ditch IE7 or IE8 for quite some time.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='jakem1' timestamp='1353157573' post='595327604']
Good to see Boz supporting the use of proprietary extensions and opposed to standards compliance. I guess it's easier than having to defend Microsoft.
[/quote]

Webkit is the standard. For both desktop and mobile. End of.

And btw, if Microsoft wants what's best for developers it should, as I said, dump their IE engine completely, join Webkit movement and create IE based on webkit and then contribute to the webkit based along with Apple, Google to improve it, so we can have finally one HTML rendering engine standard. Mozilla, btw, should do the same.

They can still make their own JS engine (like Google does with V8 and Apple does with Nitro) if they want to to compete on speed or add unique features to their IE browsers (actual browser features not how it renders content) and we can finally build developer tools and all kinds of design support and fancy effects when we have all major browsers on a single, universal rendering engine.

This would truly move the web forward in ways unseen before. Actually it would give us a terrific web platform that would be similar to Flash (and I mean from the compatibility standpoint) and we could finally build stuff that's creative and pushing the envelope instead of polluting our code with 15 different hacks just to render content properly on IE browsers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Given that Webkit is an open source rendering engine, The argument about proprietary bits is stupid. Either open the source to Trident, or examine Webkit and build better support for those features into IE. Sounds like Microsoft are pulling an Apple here and blaming someone else for their lazy coding.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm all for standards - BUT there come's a point that we need to realise that there can never be a standard that everyone is willing to adopt. It's human instinct to think "I'm better than you".

If Microsoft based IE on webkit, then we might have a chance of MAKING webkit the new "standard". I, personally, think it's our best bet. And from a developer's point of view - what do you prefer coding for? Webkit? or Trident. I know which it is for me - i've never had to put conditional comments into code for various versions of webkit like I have to on a regular basis for IE6/IE7/IE8/IE9 and no doubt, at some point, IE10.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Javik' timestamp='1353159591' post='595327670']
Given that Webkit is an open source rendering engine, The argument about proprietary bits is stupid. Either open the source to Trident, or examine Webkit and build better support for those features into IE. Sounds like Microsoft are pulling an Apple here and blaming someone else for their lazy coding.
[/quote]
"Lazy coding"? This is about websites using proprietary WebKit CSS properties over CSS standard properties, it's in no way Microsoft's fault.

Hell, Mozilla and Opera have the same concerns, Opera now even tries to parse the proprietary WebKit rules (In case the author actually wrote the value according to the standard)

9 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It would also help if the W3C moved a little quicker on finalizing standards. Take border radius CSS for example. The gap between the non standard prefix versions and the standards compliant version was far far to long.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Scorbing' timestamp='1353159877' post='595327694']
So what's the deal with IE6? What was so special about it? I don't understand.
[/quote]

It's special because it won't go away. It came out in 2001 and people still use it to this day. IE basically owned the market back then and Microsoft just sat back and let it stagnate. They didn't release IE7 until years later and only because they suddenly had competition from Firefox. Their pure laziness and greed stuck the world with a proprietary outdated browser with terrible standards compliance for nearly a decade. IE is only now becoming a good browser again, but its reputation is so badly tarnished that it may be too late to save it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Decryptor' timestamp='1353159397' post='595327660']
I remember when people claimed that about IE, and it was just as wrong then too.
[/quote]

Yeah, the only difference is that Webkit is open while IE was and still is proprietary. It's a night and day difference. Not to mention that browsers who use Webkit (Safari, Chrome) are updated transparently to the user making the very latest version immediately adopted at 90% marketshare.

It's not even beginning to compare to IE6 and never will.

IE10 will continue to linger just like everything microsoft and IE long after IE 11 is out and this fragmentation is the worst thing that has caused the web the biggest damage in progressing forward.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sorry to be the spanner in the works but Chrome still has superior HTML5 support
[/quote]

That is indeed true but with every developer release the Chrome browser slowly becomes more and more bloated and far from what a browser should be while IE10 appears to be moving in a better direction. Of course these things are always in flux and hopefully all this healthy competition will leave us end consumes (and us developers) with a win win situation.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Mikeffer' timestamp='1353160244' post='595327722']
That is indeed true but with every developer release the Chrome browser slowly becomes more and more bloated and far from what a browser should be while IE10 appears to be moving in a better direction. Of course these things are always in flux and hopefully all this healthy competition will leave us end consumes (and us developers) with a win win situation.
[/quote]

That's an odd assertion because Chrome still burns through benchmarks like Peacekeeper with a score twice as high as that as IE attains, it still starts up faster, and the installation package is still nearly the same size for me (between 2010 and 2012 the download size increased by about 10 MB and that can be pretty much wholly accounted for by the inclusion of Flash and the HTML5 video decoder plugins), the binary and DLL's are pretty much the same size as ever before. The installation file for IE10 however was something like 48 MB, about 12 MB more than the Chrome installer.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='TRC' timestamp='1353160144' post='595327714']
It's special because it won't go away. It came out in 2001 and people still use it to this day. IE basically owned the market back then and Microsoft just sat back and let it stagnate. They didn't release IE7 until years later and only because they suddenly had competition from Firefox. Their pure laziness and greed stuck the world with a proprietary outdated browser with terrible standards compliance for nearly a decade. IE is only now becoming a good browser again, but its reputation is so badly tarnished that it may be too late to save it.
[/quote]

No matter how good IE 10 is and it's compliance with W3C it is plagued by the same problem. Microsoft. As long as the browser is proprietary it shouldn't be taken seriously and will continue to do damage to the web.

As noted, Microsoft should join Webkit and be done with it. Then, they can contribute to the webkit base, agree on new features with Apple and Google and everyone supports same things in the future. It would mean they would also make transparent updating to IE so it's never stagnant and have users run a different version but the latest. At that point they wouldn't even have an issue with monopoly because their browser base would be open source and would be on the same playing field with Google and Apple.

In other words they could improve it and make the web truly unified and also make developers' lives much easier.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Mikeffer' timestamp='1353160244' post='595327722'] That is indeed true but with every developer release the Chrome browser slowly becomes more and more bloated and far from what a browser should be while IE10 appears to be moving in a better direction. Of course these things are always in flux and hopefully all this healthy competition will leave us end consumes (and us developers) with a win win situation. [/quote]more and more bloated? It still feels good and I don't mind the few MB increase in the installation file.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Javik' timestamp='1353160430' post='595327728']That's an odd assertion because Chrome still burns through benchmarks like Peacekeeper with a score twice as high as that as IE attains, it still starts up faster, and the installation package is still nearly the same size for me (between 2010 and 2012 the download size increased by about 10 MB and that can be pretty much wholly accounted for by the inclusion of Flash and the HTML5 video decoder plugins), the binary and DLL's are pretty much the same size as ever before. The installation file for IE10 however was something like 48 MB, about 12 MB more than the Chrome installer.[/quote]
Perhaps meaning bloated in the sense of resource usage. On my particular hardware anyway using the current official releases with a similar set of addons, Chromium typically uses 3-4 times as much memory as Firefox (at least, seen it even higher) and starts up a bit slower. Pretty much the only place where Chromium seems faster is on benchmark sites.. day to day usage, I find Firefox to be overall faster and smoother, I rarely use it but IE overall seems faster (and significantly lighter) as well on the day to day stuff.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Boz' timestamp='1353158851' post='595327646'] Webkit is the standard. For both desktop and mobile. End of. [/quote]

That's ridiculous. Ignoring the fact that webkit has a tiny share of the desktop market and the mobile market isn't big enough yet to matter, what you're advocating is no different to the situation that existed when IE6 owned the market. The only standards that matter are the ones agreed by W3C and other bodies and it's up to browsers to maintain compatibility.

[quote name='Javik' timestamp='1353159591' post='595327670'] Given that Webkit is an open source rendering engine, The argument about proprietary bits is stupid. Either open the source to Trident, or examine Webkit and build better support for those features into IE. Sounds like Microsoft are pulling an Apple here and blaming someone else for their lazy coding. [/quote]

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

3 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Max Norris' timestamp='1353160718' post='595327742']
Perhaps meaning bloated in the sense of resource usage. On my particular hardware anyway using the current official releases with a similar set of addons, Chromium typically uses 3-4 times as much memory as Firefox (at least, seen it even higher) and starts up a bit slower. Pretty much the only place where Chromium seems faster is on benchmark sites.. day to day usage, I find Firefox to be overall faster and smoother.
[/quote]

All browsers with tab process isolation consume more memory than those that lack it. I'm happy to sacrifice a bit of memory usage for the knowledge that a tab crash won't completely torpedo every browser window I have open. And unlike Firefox, Chrome hasn't been plagued by memory leaks since it's inception.

[quote name='jakem1' timestamp='1353160771' post='595327744']
That's ridiculous. Ignoring the fact that webkit has a tiny share of the desktop market and the mobile market isn't big enough yet to matter, what you're advocating is no different to the situation that existed when IE6 owned the market. The only standards that matter are the ones agreed by W3C and other bodies and it's up to browsers to maintain compatibility.
[/quote]

Chrome is the world's #1 web browser on the desktop. I'm not sure that qualifies as a "tiny share" Sorry, who doesn't know what they're talking about?